CC 3.2 "Realistic" Children?

Media has everything from websites, to advertisements, to TV shows, to movies, to magazines, and much more. "Gender Issues In The Media", an article written by Shari Graydon and Elizabeth Verrall, talks about the negative impacts and influences that the media has on children and the way they develop.

Messages from the media tend to be extremely stereotypical in the way they portray males and females, even when directed towards children. According to the text, "girls are shown as being endlessly preoccupied by their appearance, and fascinated primarily by dolls and jewellery." A girl's true personality and interests being disregarded, she may feel forced to act like the girls she sees on the media. If she doesn't want to, she might even feel like something is wrong with her because she can't meet the standards that the media sets for her, lowering her self-esteem.

Also, the article states that "boys are encouraged to play sports and become engrossed by war play and technology." The same effect that was mentioned about girls can happen to boys. They are encouraged to be rough and rowdy; therefore, they are more likely to show aggressive behavior.

However, children don't just see what is meant for children, they also are exposed to many adult things. The article states that children often watch/see media that is "intended for adult eyes only. These images also help shape the notions little girls and boys have about who they should be and what they can achieve". This has gotten so bad that I have even witnessed 5-year-old boys trying to look down women's shirts. Children are not supposed to even KNOW about anything sexual at that age. It's become so common now, it's like you can't find a PG movie without a sexual reference in it. Even Disney TV shows now!

On the bright side, children can be more influenced by positive things, and there are ways to minimize the effects of the stereotypical media on children. The text says, "Research tells us that the more television children watch, the more likely they are to demonstrate aggressive behaviour." So, just don't let them watch so much inappropriate media. After limiting what they watch, you can fill in the time gaps with more youthful and fulfilling, real-life events. Spend time with your children and educate them on the social media, showing them the differences between the stereotypes and reality as they grow.

In conclusion, no matter what the media wants to represent as a male and a female, you can set it straight. Children don't need to be exposed to something that will negatively alter their way of thinking. They will grow up too fast and not the way the way they should. If everyone grew up thinking they had to act like the characters on a "reality" show, what would the world even be like today?

CC 3.1 For Everyone and Females

In an article called, "Ummmm, Wikipedia Removes Female Novelists from 'American Novelists' List," posted on Sparklife, Janet Manley focuses on an issue that made its appearance on Wikipedia, as Amanda Filipacchi, a novelist, watched the "American Novelist" page dwindle to males only, and a new page open which was entitled "Female American Novelists." However, I would say that Manley is overreacting just little bit.

Sometimes a person will have an idea that seems good at the time, and he or she later realizes that it wasn't such a great idea after all. First off, she states that "Wikipedia apparently set the wheels in reverse, putting
“American Women Novelists” back onto the main page." This means that the administrators recognized that they were at fault, and fixed the problem. Sure, we might wonder what was going through their heads when they decided to change it, but seeing that they changed their minds shows evidence that maybe their intent wasn't so bad after all. Maybe once they realized that there might be controversy, they reversed what they'd done.

Secondly, there is a difference between gender equality and everyone being exactly the same. Janet wants to know "how [women have] gotten this far in history without female cars or female books or hotdogs for women." I'd like to point out that there actually are female books. There are also men's books, but that's because there ARE differences between men and women. We think differently, have different physical advantages and disadvantages, and possess many other differences that studies have proven true. It's inevitable.


To clarify, I did not say that I completely disagree with Manley. There were two major problems with the situation. First of all, she states that "female authors from Haiti and other countries were also being bumped to subtopics on their respective pages." I can definitely see why people, specifically the novelists listed, would be upset about this. They'd think "Why am I less important now?" because they were moved to a subtopic page!

Also, I'll admit the way they chose to categorize things was pretty... dumb. The article says in parentheses that the women were not only separated from the men novelists (in subtopic pages), but the men were " not, Filpacchi notes, under 'Men Novelists'." Yeah, they were just Novelists. This should also cause an obvious problem because although we are not necessarily in the "Feminist Movement" anymore, our society is recently very passionate about gender equality. Not saying I am; not saying I'm not, but it is a big deal nowadays.

All in all, this article was pretty entertaining. Manley is a funny writer, her sense of humor outweighing the exhibited anger. However, maybe she could consider what she complains about, and whether it's really worth all the fuss. It's possible that she just wanted something to write about, and tried to amplify an issue to make it entertaining to her viewers. Who knows? All I know is my stance on the subject, and that is that this article is quite an overreaction. I would like to know though, how would you react if you were moved from main topic to subtopic?